Re: Unclear license status for prospective package ht2html
Nicolas Duboc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Is a new tarball with clear copyright notices mandatory for Debian ? Not as far as I know, but I wouldn't be surprised for ftp-masters to reject a tarball without them. As a minimum, I'd snapshot http://sourceforge.net/projects/ht2html into debian/copyright for this. Would an email stating the copyright and licensing status of ht2html be sufficient ? Yes, if it's clearly the wish of all copyright holders. However, as most of ht2html has no copyright notices, I think you need them to state that they are all of the ht2html copyright holders, too. This is icky. Is there any other solution ? Probably, but I can't think of a better one. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No mention of patents in DFSG
Richard Spindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in my opinion this is to little of a statement. I believe that whenever a package is removed from the repos, there should at least be a list of the incedents that lead to the opinion that the affected package needed to be removed. [...] If they can be made public safely, I think they would be in the removal request bug. The biggest problem is if a patent-aggressor requires silence as part of the settlement, saying they'll sue for past crimes if it's made public. Unfortunatly all I know about these 'histories of active enforcement' is from rumours, and from people whose opinions are partly shaped by 'FUD' I am afraid. [...] That is unfortunate. Have you tried looking into the famous software patents at http://swpat.ffii.org/ for example or are you looking for debian package examples in particular? Does anyone know who is the person responsbile for such decisions, or who is familiar with how a process to verify the removal of packages due to the above mentioned reasons could be set up to fit into the debian community process? I think maintainers and ftp-masters are responsible for decisions to remove; and I think verification is already part of the process, but note that a package simply becoming no fun to maintain because of patent threats can result in a reason for removal (no maintainer), too. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#445998: ITP: eaccelerator -- PHP accelerator, optimizer, and dynamic content cache
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:24:14PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:29:38 +0400 Alexander Gerasiov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alexander Gerasiov [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: eaccelerator Version : 0.9.5.2 Upstream Author : eaccelerator team http://eaccelerator.net/wiki/Team * URL : http://eaccelerator.net * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : PHP accelerator, optimizer, and dynamic content cache Some dummy packages available for now in my repository at http://gq.net.ru/debian I'm going to upload it after fixing some packaging issues. Feel free to kick me by mail, if I'm too slow. Are the license issues finally solved then? Last time I checked binaries were not distributable, see for example: http://www.mailarchives.org/list/debian-devel/msg/2005/08164 grts Tim Also, in one of the many discussions about this piece of software it came out that original author of turck-mmcache (the software on which eaccelerator is based) now works for Zend. Zend produces a proprietary (and expensive) accelerator-sort of product for PHP. It is doubtful that they would enable the distribution of something that they would see as competing with their product. I seem to recall that the people who took over eaccelerator had it in mind to do a complete rewrite of the eccalerator code to break any link with turck-mmcache, allowing them to relicense eaccelerator. If that rewrite is complete, then the software may be distributable. However, I have not looked into it for quite a while. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#445998: ITP: eaccelerator -- PHP accelerator, optimizer, and dynamic content cache
На Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:53:36 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] записано: On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:24:14PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:29:38 +0400 Alexander Gerasiov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alexander Gerasiov [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: eaccelerator Version : 0.9.5.2 Upstream Author : eaccelerator team http://eaccelerator.net/wiki/Team * URL : http://eaccelerator.net * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : PHP accelerator, optimizer, and dynamic content cache Some dummy packages available for now in my repository at http://gq.net.ru/debian I'm going to upload it after fixing some packaging issues. Feel free to kick me by mail, if I'm too slow. Are the license issues finally solved then? Last time I checked binaries were not distributable, see for example: http://www.mailarchives.org/list/debian-devel/msg/2005/08164 grts Tim Also, in one of the many discussions about this piece of software it came out that original author of turck-mmcache (the software on which eaccelerator is based) now works for Zend. Zend produces a proprietary (and expensive) accelerator-sort of product for PHP. It is doubtful that they would enable the distribution of something that they would see as competing with their product. I seem to recall that the people who took over eaccelerator had it in mind to do a complete rewrite of the eccalerator code to break any link with turck-mmcache, allowing them to relicense eaccelerator. If that rewrite is complete, then the software may be distributable. However, I have not looked into it for quite a while. OMG! That's why it's still unavailable in Debian =\ I didn't knew about PHP Licence incompatibility with GPL before. So what do you guys think about wrapper package, which allows installing eaccelerator like $ make-eaccelerator-package ? As I understand all this legal issues it will be ok. -- Best regards, Alexander GQ Gerasiov Contacts: e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://gq.net.ru